DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/5/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (US 2018/0194550) in view of Town (US 8,894,282) further in view of Smith (US 2,749,957).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Green (figs. 13 and 20) discloses a portable leak-proof container 300, 400 (for substantially liquid materials, solid materials or a combination thereof), comprising:
a substantially planar base 302, 402 having an outer circumference or perimeter that is substantially circular in shape; and
a plurality of panels 320, 420 abutting the substantially planar base, the plurality of panels 320, 420 being individually encased within a plurality of wall compartments 314, 414 of a wall 310, 410 having a truncated cone shape, wherein the wall having the truncated cone shape is attached with at least the substantially planar base at the outer circumference or perimeter.
Green fails to disclose the wall having the truncated cone shape being fused via radio frequency welding; and
a plurality of straps individually comprising complete loops, wherein the complete loops individually comprise a portion affixed to at least the substantially planar base.
However, Town discloses a lifting bag having pieces joined by radio frequency welding (col. 3, lines 51-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have fused the wall of Green via radio frequency welding to provide a strong uniform bond. Also, it has been held that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 50-51, 148 USPQ 479, 483 (1966)).
Further, Smith teaches a carrier having a plurality of straps (see straps one and two in marked-up fig. 2) individually comprising complete loops (fig. 1) wherein the complete loops individually comprise a portion affixed to at least a substantially planar base (figs. 1-3 and col. 2, lines 42-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the modified device of Green a plurality of straps, for lifting the package, as taught by Smith in col. 2, lines 42-46.
PNG
media_image1.png
480
469
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2-4, Green further discloses the wall having detruncated cone shape comprising an angle 312, 412 having a pitch of less than 90 degrees (figs. 14 and 21) but the modified Green fails to disclose the angle 312, 412 being between 65 degrees and 75 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the angle 312, 412 of the Modified Green, between 60 degrees and 80 degrees, since it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Green further discloses one or more fasteners 332 and 432, coupled to the wall 310, 410 having the truncated cone shape, to retain a cover 160 over a top portion of the portable leak-proof container figs. (13 and 20).
Regarding claim 7, Green in another embodiment teaches eyelets 134 eyelets to accommodate a corresponding number of stakes, the corresponding number of stakes to restrict movement of the portable leak-proof container with respect to a supporting surface (fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the device of Green eyelets, to anchor the container to the ground as taught by Green in paragraph 0042.
Regarding claim 9, Green further discloses the portable leak-proof container is suitable for or capable of retaining concrete suspended in a liquid medium or for containing a slurry material (paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 10, Green further discloses the plurality of panels abutting the substantially round base being substantially rectangular in shape at least when the shape of the base have multiple (more than 16) sides (figs. 13, 20 and paragraph 0061).
Regarding claims 12-13, the modified Green further discloses:
wherein for individual straps of the plurality of straps 13, an additional portion is affixed to one or more of the plurality of panels abutting the substantially planar base; and
wherein for individual straps of the plurality of straps 13, an additional portion is affixed to the wall having the truncated cone shape (figs. 1 and 3 of Smith, and col. 2, lines 6-17).
Regarding claim 15, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 17-20, the modified Green discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for the substantially planar base comprising a diameter of approximately five feet or seven feet and wherein the plurality of straps comprise six to eight straps or three to four complete loops.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the diameter of the base either five feet or seven feet, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding the number of straps and complete loops, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 21, Green further discloses a self-erecting moisture-shedding cover 160 capable of being placed in contact with an upper portion of the wall having the truncated cone shape (paragraphs 0050 and 0069).
Regarding claim 23, Green further discloses the self- erecting moisture-shedding cover 160 comprising a skirt 166 which is capable of providing a path for moisture shedding below a lip of the upper portion of the wall having the truncated cone shape (fig. 7).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (US 2018/0194550) in view of Town (US 8,894,282) and Smith (US 2,749,957) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Dillard (US2008/0047859).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Green further discloses the plurality of straps being affixed to the substantially planar base and to at least one of the plurality of panels abutting the substantially planar base (fig. 3 of Smith), but fails to disclose the straps being affixed by RF welding.
However, Dillard teaches joints and straps being secured by RF welding (paragraph 0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have affixed the straps of the modified Green, by RF welding, to create a waterproof connection as taught by Dillard in paragraph 0019. Also, it has been held that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 50-51, 148 USPQ 479, 483 (1966)).
Claims 22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (US 2018/0194550) in view of Town (US 8,894,282) and Smith (US 2,749,957) as applied to claim 21 above, further in view of McLeese (US 4,858,634).
Regarding claims 22 and 24-25, the modified Green discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for the self-erecting moisture-shedding cover comprising:
two or more flexible ribs, the two or more flexible ribs being prestressed to maintain an arc or dome shape responsive to deployment; wherein the two or more flexible ribs crossover at a crossover location at a base portion of the self- erecting moisture-shedding cover; and
a tensioner to retain in place the two or more flexible ribs at the crossover location at the base portion of the self-erecting moisture-shedding cover.
However, McLeese teaches a self-erecting structure having the claimed flexible ribs and tensioner 20 (fig. 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the self-erecting cover of the modified Green, flexible ribs and tensioners, to provide a cover that is instantaneously self-erecting from its stored configuration, and can easily be restored to its storage configuration, as taught by McLeese in col. 1, lines 6-11.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (US 2018/0194550) in view of Town (US 8,894,282) and Smith (US 2,749,957) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hunter (US 9,751,691).
Regarding claim 26, the modified Green discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for container comprising at least a substantial percentage of polyvinyl chloride.
However, Hunter teaches a container made of PVC (col. 5, lines 64-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the modified device of Green, of PVC, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that loops 14 do not individually comprise a portion affixed to a substantially planar base. However, in the rejection each loop of Smith is formed by strap 13, fastening member 15 and cord 16, which collectively define the loop structure. As shown in figs. 1-2 of Smith these loop structures are affixed to the substantially planal base.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAINE GIRMA NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5275. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Stashick can be reached at 571-272-4561. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BLAINE G NEWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights